That's just the picture. If you go to the "specs and geometry" tab, it gives you the specs for the VWD Dura Ace Di2, which is the stock bike that Trek tested. Fulcrum Racing T wheels. But I agree, that chart is impossible to conclude much from. Too much marketing BS.My conclusion stands. All they've done is maybe marginally improved the madone, and then put their efforts into white papers, hype, sales rallies, 1k$ no paint jobs, etc. Status quo for Trek.

There's no revolutionary changes in bikes at this point... all improvements are "marginal". But marginal is still significant.

I like it: it seems like a very solid bike. I really like it that aerodynamics isn't getting brazenly ignored any more, and that the realization is there that a garish paint job undoes a lot of carbon fiber optimization. The $/gram savings from the $1k paint upgrade is no worse than what it typically costs to get lighter frames... even back to the days of the Cervelo "SL"'s (although it's a false comparison: a light clear-coat is cheap and almost as light). And the days of "stiffness over all" are now long gone, thankfully. I think this is a clear improvement.

I am a fan of Treks. My first road bike was a Trek 1.5 and I loved it. I have not yet found a bike I enjoy riding more than my old Trek 1500 too.

This though, is kinda ugly. The headtube really doesn't look good - but that's totally subjective. However I feel people in this thread have been taking the aero data too seriously. I mean, it's published by the people that want you to buy the bike; any degree of critical thinking would lead to take the graph with a pinch of salt. It's like the recent election votes in Russia - they didn't even try to be subtle about it. '750g' frame just so happens to be the most aero you can buy now? Come on...

Also everyone on this forum should be cynical about claimed weights. Let's see some real numbers.

Sorry for being a Debbie downer but I'll be impressed once we see some real data. I promise I will eat my words if it's proven!

My personal view is that this is not a truly aero bike to take on the S5 or Venge. Its simply a Madone made as aero as possible and as such should hopefully offer a very broad range of attributes. I don't think many (any?) riders will choose the Madone exclusively for its aero properties. Instead the fact it has made aero gains will simply be an additional attribute to a very well thought out bike.An ultimately additional consumer choice should be welcomed

I totally agree that the best position for Trek would be to offer a Madone that is a great bike but doesn't totally ignore aerodynamics, and almost the entire bike indicates that this was the goal for the bike. And then, integrated brakes. They may never be a problem, but it is such a bold inclusion it makes all of the other un-aero decisions look silly.

This bike will live or die based on how well it rides and how user friendly that rear brake is in the real world.Trek has put all their high-end eggs in this basket. Also- given that the 5 series bikes have the same rear brake- they will be selling these in numbers. Consumers and shops will scream bloody murder if it is a pain in the ass for them.It will be a homerun or a train wreck-

Thread bump!Anyone on here got access to the frame weight for the 5 series of 2013 Madones?By my reckoning ( having read through the thread ), the 7 is about 750g with vapour coat paint, so most likely about 820g+ with a normal paint finish - please correct me if i'm wrong! The 6 would appear to be 950g according to Terminus' post, but I can't for the life of me find anything on the 5, either here or out there in google. Reason being Trek have offered a 2012 Madone to replace my broken frameset, or one of the 2013 models for a premium and i can't decide if the price difference between the different models is justified. The 2013 5 series isn't going to cost me that much more than the "free" 2012 frame and as i much prefer the newer frame it's therefore rather tempting, providing i can wait for one to reach the UK - an agonizing 3 month wait...!! The 2013 6/7 series frames are available sooner, but also, rather naturally carry a sizable £diff. Tempting as these are, the weight of the 6 doesn't appear to be all that special, so if the weight diff between this and a 5 isn't much then maybe i'd be better off controlling my impatience and waiting, otherwise i may just ignore my sensible head and order the 7.

Wilson, one relevant note may be that the 2012 Madone 5 frames seemed to be about as light as the 2012 Madone 6 frames. A poster on the WW board had a 58cm Madone 5 frame that weighed 920 grams bare, which compared very favorably to the 2012 Madone 6 I believe(maybe even a touch lighter).

For anyone that may be interested i took out a 2013 6 series Madone and a 2012 5 series Madone for a test yesterday - back to back. Rode them on the same route, about an hour apart so conditions were fairly comparable. The route i chose was pretty similar to my normal training routes which tend to be fairly hilly - 1000ft of climbing per 10 miles, making it easy to compare to what i'm used to. As far as i could tell there wasn't a great deal of difference in the stiffness, when I tried a few sprints and attacked a couple of short inclines ( for reference i'm 6ft and 74kg ) they each took the power very efficiently, with no fuss. Both were certainly better at this than the Ti Lemond that this would be replacing, which was naturally a little more flexy in this regard so not an overly fair comparison. However the 2013 certainly felt more comfortable on the crappy road surfaces that are common in these parts, and I would guess that this is a direct result of the rear brake bridge having been removed. In fact I would actually go so far as to suggest that it was on a par with the Lemond, and thats no small praise as that bike was very, very comfortable. In defence of the 2012 5, its far from uncomfortable but I noticed a definite difference. With regard to the aero benefit, that was pretty difficult to judge, they were both on the stock Bontrager Race Light wheelset, therefore any difference ought to have been 100% due to the frame. On the road it didn't feel that noticable, the 6 felt slightly better but i was sceptical that this could have been a sort of placebo as i was willing it to be better. However i was riding with my Garmin in the jersey pocket and when i downloaded the ride data later in the day the 2013 did show a slight advantage on the flat. Overall the weight, comfort, stiffness and ( possible.. ) aero benefit on the new model left me very impressed, to the point where i will be taking Treks frame upgrade offer and ordering one of the new 2013 frames rather than taking a 2012 frame. Going to have to try and forget the fact that i will then be riding the same frame as just about every other rider in my locality for the next couple of seasons!Now I need to decide whether to wait a few months for a 5, or pay the extra to have a 6 or a 7 now....

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum